20191577 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20200316

Strickland, Bev
From: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 11:37 AM
To: Clement Riddle; Homewood, Sue
Cc: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Lee Thomason; Hamstead, Byron
Subject: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Ranger update: USACE Action ID 2019-01867 -
DWR Project NO.20191577
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Clement,
Thanks for the update and wanted to respond with some additional items based on my site visit, your response and
previous meetings/discussions along with an update on some other coordination issues:
1. 1 concur with Sue's comment so please copy me as well: "Will you please provide a plan sheet that shows where
the HDD drilling pads and drilling mud containment areas will be. The Division will likely request additional
information regarding the construction details for the HDD activities but for now if we can just have an updated
plan showing the location that will help".
2. Regarding the 25-foot buffer/protective fencing on undisturbed wetlands/streams: Thanks for getting that
going as it will be a condition of our permit. Can this be extended to the five archeological sites referenced in
Renee's January 14, 2020 letter?
3. Regarding the Substation and revised building pad boundaries, coordination with Renee/SHPO will need to
happen to make sure nothing has changed with regards to effects to listed historic properties. I'm assuming not
but please provide a separate email to me covering these changes in relation to surveyed archaeological sites
and historic structures so I can coordinate accordingly with their office. The location for the HDD footprint needs
to be included as well if it outside previous project boundaries.
4. The Draft River Safety Plan (provided in 01/06/20 email): Please verify if there are any missing outfitters. We
discussed the company next to Carrier Park and another potential company off Riverside Drive in Woodfin that
needs to be included.
5. Additional information on minimization at bridge location (i.e. three lane versus five lane bridge): Please
quantify the difference in impacts for a 3 versus 5 lane bridge, clarification on what future uses may be
supported by a five lane bridge, and if DOT is requiring the pedestrian/sidewalk portion.
Update on Coordination/Status of Application:
Section 106 NHP — see above request (#3) but have forwarded a draft copy of the MOA to our legal counsel for
review/comment that proposes a data recovery plan to mitigate the adverse effects on the only eligible site
(archeological site on west bank of River in bridge footprint). MOA will need to be finalized before can issue our
permit.
Section 7 ESA— Currently waiting on finalized Biological Assessment and then Biological Opinion to be issued before
can issue our permit.
Section 401— Unfortunately the public hearing has been canceled but it appears written comments will be accepted
until April 20t". Please note that we will likely not wait on the issuance of the 401 to issue the 404/10 permit as long
as I have everything I need on my end.

USFS- Bent Creek Experimental Station —we had a request from the archaeologist to review the application and
survey/reports which I have forwarded but haven't received any comment back on yet.
Let me know if you have any questions, thanks!
Amanda
828-271-7980 ext. 4225
From: Clement Riddle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 12:31 PM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Ranger update: USACE Action ID 2019-01867 - DWR Project NO.20191577
Amanda and Sue,
The following supplemental information is being provide to you as a project update. We are also providing
information/clarification as requested during on our site visit with Ms. Amanda Jones on March 1, 2020. Please note:
There are no new wetland or stream impacts included with this submittal update.
1. After further evaluation and discussion with bridge engineers and contractors the bridge Impact Plan (Figure 5A;
attached) now indicates that the short-term temporary causeway will be in place 3 months. The applicant had
previously indicated just one month for the short-term causeway. The long-term causeway (and short term
causeway combined) in the river is still expected to be 12 months. Permit drawings Figure 5 and Figure 5A have
been changed to identify the duration of the 3-month causeway.
2. The applicant had previously indicated that gas and water utilities would be brought to the site by means of
attaching under the bridge over the French Broad River. It now appears that the preference for both utilities is
to directionally bore under the French Broad river. Both lines will be a minimum of six feet under the bottom of
the French Broad River and will be adjacent to the bridge crossing.
3. The WRC had requested that the applicant provide details for a frac-out contingency plan. The Frac-out plan
includes the following:
All project personnel are responsible to report any indication of an inadvertent return or an observed
inadvertent return. If either of these conditions are reported and confirmed, operations are to immediately
cease and not to resume until cleanup procedures are complete and appropriate agencies have been
notified.
Containment and removal of drilling fluid releases to the surface from an inadvertent release of drilling
fluids will be performed where practical and where there will be a net benefit in the reduction of total
environmental impacts.
4. Duke Energy will be constructing a substation on Biltmore Farms property. The approximate location is shown
on Figure 5. The final pad for the substation is expected to be between 2-4 acres. The proposed sub -station
area is entirely within upland area with no stream or wetland impacts needed to construct or operate.

5. Figure 5 shows a partial change in alignment for the sewer line connection from the building pad to the existing
MSD sewer line. This alternative would install the sewer line within an existing road be for approximately half of
the distance. There is no impact to streams or wetlands for the installation the sewer line connection. The
sewer line will cross a stream at an existing culvert location. The line will be installed under the culvert, with no
stream impact.
Field visit questions
6. The applicant is installing orange gate fencing a long streams and wetlands that are within 25 feet to the
building pad site.
7. Figure 5A (bridge impact) has added the limits of disturbance layer to the drawing. There is no change to the
proposed wetland impact as the permit application submittal indicates that this entire 0.067 acre wetland
(cross -hatched) is likely to be filled.
Please do not hestate to contact me with any questions.
Clement
[I_earWater
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Office: 828-698-9800
Mobile: [phone]
clement(cDcwenv.com
B1ockedWWW.CWENV.00M
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee(s). Disclosure to other parties is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

aearWaEer